6 minute read
Wireline Report
REGULATORY UPDATE >> The Wireline Report
FCC’s stepped-up efforts to reduce robocalls.
Advertisement
By Mary J. Sisak, Partner, Blooston Law (mjs@bloostonlaw.com)
The FCC released an order granting broad safe-harbor protections to voice service providers (VSPs) that block legitimate calls that the VSP identified as suspected fraudulent calls or unlawful robocalls. Over the past year, alarm companies have reported numerous instances when calls from the central station to the customer in connection with an alarm event were incorrectly blocked or mislabeled as fraud. The FCC’s order is intended to encourage more VSPs to block calls by protecting them from legal action when they block legitimate calls. It may also encourage VSPs to block calls, rather than label them as suspected fraud.
The safe harbor from liability is available to terminating VSPs that: 1. Block calls based on reasonable analytics designed to identify unwanted calls, so long as those take into account information provided by STIR/SHAKEN; 2. Offer to consumers the ability to opt-out of blocking; and 3. Furnish a single point of contact to resolve unintended or inadvertent blocking.
The FCC states that when blocking, VSPs should make all reasonable efforts to ensure that critical calls, such as those from Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), are not blocked and that they should never block calls to 911. Calls from alarm companies are not included in this protected group.
For purposes of this safe harbor, reasonable analytics may include blocking calls that are of low average call duration; where there are large bursts of calls in a short time frame; or where there is a large volume of complaints related to a suspect line. Terminating VSPs must incorporate caller ID authentication information into their reasonable analytics programs. At this time, only the STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication framework satisfies this requirement. A number of VSPs have already implemented STIR/SHAKEN in the IP part of their networks and more will do so by June 30, 2021, as required by the FCC. If a portion of the calls received by the terminating VSP are authenticated, the safe harbor would be available for the blocking of calls from non-IP network, as well.
To obtain the safe harbor, a VSP that blocks calls must designate a single point of contact for callers, as well as other VSPs, to report blocking errors at no charge. Blocking providers must investigate and resolve blocking disputes in a reasonable amount of time. Blocking providers must publish contact information clearly and conspicuously on their public-facing websites.
The FCC declined to adopt a Critical Calls List as requested by AICC, finding that such a list would be subject to abuse and do more harm than good.
In the Order, the FCC also denied AICC’s Petition for Clarification or Reconsideration, in which AICC asked the Commission to clarify certain requirements in its previous call-blocking Declaratory Ruling. Among other things, AICC asked the FCC to clarify that alarm company notifications are the type of emergency communication the Commission cautions voice service providers must safeguard. Although the FCC recognized that “alarm company notifications can be extremely important, particularly when it is a question of whether to dispatch emergency services,” the FCC denied this request. Rather, the FCC encouraged alarm companies “to take advantage of our requirement in this Order that terminating voice service providers that block calls provide a single point of contact for call-blocking issues, and to educate their customers that alarm calls may be blocked if the customer chooses not to opt out of their voice service provider’s blocking program.”
Central Station Calls Continue to be Blocked or Mislabeled Because of Robocall Efforts
AICC filed reply comments informing the FCC of the issues experienced by central stations in connection with the call blocking programs initiated by carriers to stop robocalls. AICC’s reply comments were in response to the FCC’s request for comment on any call blocking issues, including the implementation and effectiveness of opt-in and opt-out call blocking services based on analytics, since the FCC clarified in 2019 that voice service providers may provide call blocking without the customer’s up-front consent, as long as customers can optout of such blocking. In its reply comments, AICC informed the FCC that a number of alarm central stations have reported that calls placed AICC is seeking information on any harmful impacts to public safety experienced by companies caused by carriers and broadband Internet access providers that block or throttle traffic or are caused by the paid prioritization programs used by such providers. Information received will be used by AICC to support its argument in favor of protections for public safety entities, including alarm companies, from such practices. On October 1, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its opinion in Mozilla v. Federal Communications Commission, and largely upheld the FCC’s net neutrality order, which allows broadband Internet access providers to by the central station to respond to an alarm signal have been blocked or mislabeled as suspected fraud by a voice service provider. While some of the central stations were able to get the matter resolved with some carriers, others had difficulty contacting the appropriate carrier and/or getting the issue resolved. One central station had many calls blocked by different carriers and noted the impossibility of notifying all carriers about all central station numbers that are blocked. AICC argued that alarm companies need a one-stop
reporting solution to address this issue. Other industries also reported that their lawful calls have been blocked or mislabeled as potential fraud by voice
service providers. Companies also report adopt paid prioritization, blocking and throttling practices. However, the Court remanded a number of issues to the FCC for further consideration and vacated the FCC’s attempt to preempt the states. Most notable for the alarm industry, the Court remanded the FCC’s Order on the question of how paid prioritization, blocking and throttling of traffic will impact public safety.
The FCC’s public notice seeking comment on the remanded issues appears focused on information to justify its original order rather than change the application of the order to protect public safety. In response, the majority of commenters urge the Commission to find that no protections are needed for public safety and to maintain its original
TMA 2020 Annual Meeting October 27-29, 2020 | Virtual
Unprecedented times. Unlimited discovery.
www.tma.us
mixed results in resolving call blocking issues with voice service providers.
The FCC has dealt with call blocking in its Order and, as discussed, has provided safe harbor protections in connection with such calls. However, the FCC did not specifically address mislabeling calls and is seeking comment of this issue.
If your central station has experienced the mislabeling of calls as potential fraud, please send such information to TMA so that it can be provided to the FCC in an effort to ensure that calls from central stations are not mislabeled. Send the information to: Celia T. Besore Executive Director, TMA cbesore@tma.us
order. Little information was provided to demonstrate issues or problems experienced by public safety entities as a result of the net neutrality rules.
Information demonstrating harmful impacts, if any, caused by paid prioritization, blocking and throttling of traffic will be critical to obtaining changes to the FCC’s Order to prohibit or limit such practices.
Please report any such impacts experienced by your company to:
Celia T. Besore Executive Director, TMA cbesore@tma.us
Early-bird registration ends Aug. 31 st
